Patrick Ecollan

Platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibition with coronary stenting for acute myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND When administered in conjunction with primary coronary stenting for the treatment of acute myocardial infarction, a platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor may provide additional clinical benefit, but data on this combination therapy are limited. METHODS We randomly assigned 300 patients with acute myocardial infarction in a double-blind fashion either to abciximab plus stenting (149 patients) or placebo plus stenting (151 patients) before they underwent coronary angiography. Clinical outcomes were evaluated 30 days and 6 months after the procedure. The angiographic patency of the infarct-related vessel and the left ventricular ejection fraction were evaluated at 24 hours and 6 months. RESULTS At 30 days, the primary end point--a composite of death, reinfarction, or urgent revascularization of the target vessel--had occurred in 6.0 percent of the patients in the abciximab group, as compared with 14.6 percent of those in the placebo group (P=0.01); at 6 months, the corresponding figures were 7.4 percent and 15.9 percent (P=0.02). The better clinical outcomes in the abciximab group were related to the greater frequency of grade 3 coronary flow (according to the classification of the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction trial) in this group than in the placebo group before the procedure (16.8 percent vs. 5.4 percent, P=0.01), immediately afterward (95.1 percent vs. 86.7 percent, P=0.04), and six months afterward (94.3 percent vs. 82.8 percent, P=0.04). One major bleeding event occurred in the abciximab group (0.7 percent); none occurred in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS As compared with placebo, early administration of abciximab in patients with acute myocardial infarction improves coronary patency before stenting, the success rate of the stenting procedure, the rate of coronary patency at six months, left ventricular function, and clinical outcomes.

Vasopressin and Epinephrine vs. Epinephrine Alone in Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation

BACKGROUND During the administration of advanced cardiac life support for resuscitation from cardiac arrest, a combination of vasopressin and epinephrine may be more effective than epinephrine or vasopressin alone, but evidence is insufficient to make clinical recommendations. METHODS In a multicenter study, we randomly assigned adults with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest to receive successive injections of either 1 mg of epinephrine and 40 IU of vasopressin or 1 mg of epinephrine and saline placebo, followed by administration of the same combination of study drugs if spontaneous circulation was not restored and subsequently by additional epinephrine if needed. The primary end point was survival to hospital admission; the secondary end points were return of spontaneous circulation, survival to hospital discharge, good neurologic recovery, and 1-year survival. RESULTS A total of 1442 patients were assigned to receive a combination of epinephrine and vasopressin, and 1452 to receive epinephrine alone. The treatment groups had similar baseline characteristics except that there were more men in the group receiving combination therapy than in the group receiving epinephrine alone (P=0.03). There were no significant differences between the combination-therapy and the epinephrine-only groups in survival to hospital admission (20.7% vs. 21.3%; relative risk of death, 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97 to 1.05), return of spontaneous circulation (28.6% vs. 29.5%; relative risk, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.06), survival to hospital discharge (1.7% vs. 2.3%; relative risk, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.02), 1-year survival (1.3% vs. 2.1%; relative risk, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.02), or good neurologic recovery at hospital discharge (37.5% vs. 51.5%; relative risk, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.81 to 2.06). CONCLUSIONS As compared with epinephrine alone, the combination of vasopressin and epinephrine during advanced cardiac life support for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest does not improve outcome. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00127907.)

A comparison of standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation and active compression- decompression resuscitation for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest

Background We previously observed that short-term survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest was greater with active compression–decompression cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) than with standard CPR. In the current study, we assessed the effects of the active compression–decompression method on one-year survival. Methods Patients who had cardiac arrest in the Paris metropolitan area or in Thionville, France, more than 80 percent of whom had asystole, were assigned to receive either standard CPR (377 patients) or active compression–decompression CPR (373 patients) according to whether their arrest occurred on an even or odd day of the month, respectively. The primary end point was survival at one year. The rate of survival to hospital discharge without neurologic impairment and the neurologic outcome were secondary end points. Results Both the rate of hospital discharge without neurologic impairment (6 percent vs. 2 percent, P=0.01) and the one-year survival rate (5 percent vs. 2 percent, P=0.03) wer...

Intravenous enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin in primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-elevation myocardial infarction: the international randomised open-label ATOLL trial

BACKGROUND Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST-elevation myocardial infarction has traditionally been supported by unfractionated heparin, which has never been directly compared with a new anticoagulant using consistent anticoagulation and similar antiplatelet strategies in both groups. We compared traditional heparin treatment with intravenous enoxaparin in primary PCI. METHODS In a randomised open-label trial, patients presenting with ST-elevation myocardial infarction were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive an intravenous bolus of 0·5 mg/kg of enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin before primary PCI. Wherever possible, medical teams travelling in mobile intensive care units (ambulances) selected, randomly assigned (using an interactive voice response system at the central randomisation centre), and treated patients. Patients who had received any anticoagulant before randomisation were excluded. Patients and caregivers were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was 30-day incidence of death, complication of myocardial infarction, procedure failure, or major bleeding. The main secondary endpoint was the composite of death, recurrent acute coronary syndrome, or urgent revascularisation. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00718471. FINDINGS 910 patients were assigned to treatment with enoxaparin (n=450) or unfractionated heparin (n=460). The primary endpoint occurred in 126 (28%) patients after anticoagulation with enoxaparin versus 155 (34%) patients on unfractionated heparin (relative risk [RR] 0·83, 95% CI 0·68-1·01, p=0·06). The incidence of death (enoxaparin, 17 [4%] vs heparin, 29 [6%] patients; p=0·08), complication of myocardial infarction (20 [4%] vs 29 [6%]; p=0·21), procedure failure (100 [26%] vs 109 [28%]; p=0·61), and major bleeding (20 [5%] vs 22 [5%]; p=0·79) did not differ between groups. Enoxaparin resulted in a significantly reduced rate of the main secondary endpoint (30 [7%] vs 52 [11%] patients; RR 0·59, 95% CI 0·38-0·91, p=0·015). Death, complication of myocardial infarction, or major bleeding (46 [10%] vs 69 [15%] patients; p=0·03), death or complication of myocardial infarction (35 [8%] vs 57 [12%]; p=0·02), and death, recurrent myocardial infarction, or urgent revascularisation (23 [5%] vs 39 [8%]; p=0·04) were all reduced with enoxaparin. INTERPRETATION Intravenous enoxaparin compared with unfractionated heparin significantly reduced clinical ischaemic outcomes without differences in bleeding and procedural success. Therefore, enoxaparin provided an improvement in net clinical benefit in patients undergoing primary PCI. FUNDING Direction de la Recherche Clinique, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris; Sanofi-Aventis.

Enoxaparin in Primary and Facilitated Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. A Formal Prospective Nonrandomized Substudy of the FINESSE Trial (Facilitated INtervention with Enhanced Reperfusion Speed to Stop Events)

OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to assess the risk-benefit of enoxaparin (Sanofi-Aventis, Paris, France) in primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). BACKGROUND Randomized studies have demonstrated the superiority of enoxaparin over unfractionated heparin (UFH) in acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) treated with fibrinolytics. METHODS In the FINESSE (Facilitated INtervention with Enhanced Reperfusion Speed to Stop Events) trial--a double-blind, placebo-controlled study-2,452 patients with STEMI were randomized to primary PCI or facilitated PCI with abciximab alone or with half-dose reteplase. In this prospective FINESSE substudy, centers pre-specified use of either enoxaparin (0.5 mg/kg intravenous [IV], 0.3 mg/kg subcutaneous [SC]) or UFH (40 U/kg IV, 3,000 U maximum) with PCI. A logistic-regression model and a propensity multivariate model, both adjusted for baseline variables, were used to evaluate primary safety and secondary efficacy end points for enoxaparin versus UFH. RESULTS Enoxaparin was administered to 759 patients and UFH to 1,693 patients. Nonintracranial Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) major/minor bleeding was not significantly different, but lower nonintracranial TIMI major bleeding was found with enoxaparin (2.6% vs. UFH 4.4%, logistic-regression adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.31 to 0.99, p = 0.045), whereas intracranial hemorrhage was similar (0.27% vs. 0.24%, adjusted OR: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.11 to 9.68, p = 0.980). Lower death, myocardial infarction, urgent revascularization, or refractory ischemia through 30 days was also associated with enoxaparin (5.3%) versus UFH (8.0%, adjusted OR: 0.47, 95% CI: 0.31 to 0.72, p = 0.0005) as was all-cause mortality through 90 days (3.8% vs. 5.6%, respectively, adjusted OR: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.35 to 0.99, p = 0.046). End points evaluating the net clinical benefit also significantly favored enoxaparin over UFH. CONCLUSIONS Enoxaparin seems to be associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular outcomes compared with UFH in patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI. Confirmation of these findings in a randomized study is warranted. (A Study of Abciximab and Reteplase When Administered Prior to Catheterization After a Myocardial Infarction [Finesse]; NCT00046228).

Effect of prasugrel pre-treatment strategy in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for NSTEMI: the ACCOAST-PCI study.

BACKGROUND After percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), treatment with a P2Y12 antagonist with aspirin is recommended for 1 year. OBJECTIVES The oral P2Y12 antagonists ticagrelor and prasugrel have higher recommendations than clopidogrel, but it is unknown if administration before the start of PCI is beneficial. METHODS In the randomized, double-blind ACCOAST (A Comparison of prasugrel at the time of percutaneous Coronary intervention Or as pre-treatment At the time of diagnosis in patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction) trial, 4,033 patients were diagnosed with NSTEMI and 68.7% underwent PCI; 1,394 received pre-treatment with prasugrel (30-mg loading dose), and 1,376 received placebo. At the time of PCI, patients who received pre-treatment with prasugrel received an additional 30-mg dose of prasugrel, and those who received placebo received a 60-mg loading dose of prasugrel. Primary efficacy was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, urgent revascularization, or glycoprotein IIb/IIIa bailout through 7 days from randomization. Investigators captured the presence of thrombus on initial angiography and during PCI. RESULTS The incidence of the primary endpoint through 7 days from randomization in the pre-treatment group versus the no pre-treatment group was 13.1% versus 13.1% (p = 0.93). Pre-treatment with prasugrel was not associated with decreases in any ischemic event, including total mortality. Patients with thrombus on angiography had a 3-fold higher incidence of the primary endpoint than patients without thrombus. There was no impact of pre-treatment with prasugrel on the presence of thrombus before PCI or on occurrence of stent thrombosis after PCI. There was a 3-fold increase in all non-coronary artery bypass graft Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) major bleeding and a 6-fold increase in non-coronary artery bypass graft life-threatening bleeding with pre-treatment with prasugrel; the same trends persisted in patients who had radial or femoral access even with use of a closure device. CONCLUSIONS These findings support deferring treatment with prasugrel until a decision is made about revascularization in patients with NSTEMI undergoing angiography within 48 h of admission. (A Comparison of prasugrel at the time of percutaneous Coronary intervention Or as pre-treatment At the time of diagnosis in patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction [ACCOAST]; NCT01015287).

Early Aldosterone Blockade in Acute Myocardial Infarction: The ALBATROSS Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA) improve outcome in the setting of post-myocardial infarction (MI) heart failure (HF). OBJECTIVES The study sought to assess the benefit of an early MRA regimen in acute MI irrespective of the presence of HF or left ventricular (LV) dysfunction. METHODS We randomized 1,603 patients to receive an MRA regimen with a single intravenous bolus of potassium canrenoate (200 mg) followed by oral spironolactone (25 mg once daily) for 6 months in addition to standard therapy or standard therapy alone. The primary outcome of the study was the composite of death, resuscitated cardiac arrest, significant ventricular arrhythmia, indication for implantable defibrillator, or new or worsening HF at 6-month follow-up. Key secondary/safety outcomes included death and other individual components of the primary outcome and rates of hyperkalemia at 6 months. RESULTS The primary outcome occurred in 95 (11.8%) and 98 (12.2%) patients in the treatment and control groups, respectively (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.73 to 1.28). Death occurred in 11 (1.4%) and 17 (2.1%) patients in the treatment and control groups, respectively (HR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.30 to 1.38). In a non-pre-specified exploratory analysis, the odds of death were reduced in the treatment group (3 [0.5%] vs. 15 [2.4%]; HR: 0.20; 95% CI: 0.06 to 0.70) in the subgroup of ST-segment elevation MI (n = 1,229), but not in non-ST-segment elevation MI (p for interaction = 0.01). Hyperkalemia >5.5 mmol/l(-1) occurred in 3% and 0.2% of patients in the treatment and standard therapy groups, respectively (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS The study failed to show the benefit of early MRA use in addition to standard therapy in patients admitted for MI. (Aldosterone Lethal effects Blockade in Acute myocardial infarction Treated with or without Reperfusion to improve Outcome and Survival at Six months follow-up; NCT01059136).

Prehospital Abciximab in ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Results of the Randomized, Double-Blind MISTRAL Study

Background— The value of prehospital initiation of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors remains a controversial issue. We sought to investigate whether in-ambulance initiation of abciximab in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) improves ST-segment elevation resolution (STR) after primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Methods and Results— MISTRAL (Myocardial Infarction with ST-elevation Treated by Primary Percutaneous Intervention Facilitated by Early Reopro Administration in Alsace) is a prospective, randomized, double-blind study. Two hundred and fifty-six patients with acute STEMI were allocated to receive abciximab either in the ambulance (ambulance group, n=127) or in the catheterization laboratory (hospital group, n=129). The primary end point was complete (>70%) STR after PCI. Complete STR was not significantly different between the 2 groups (before PCI, 21.6% versus 15.5%, P=0.28; after PCI, 70.3% versus 65.8%, P=0.49). Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) 2 to 3 flow rates before PCI tended to be higher in the ambulance group (46.8% versus 35%, P=0.08) but not after PCI (70.3% versus 65.8%, P=0.49). Slow flow tended to be lower (5.6% versus 13.4%, P=0.07), and distal embolization occurred significantly less often in the ambulance group (8.1% versus 21.1%, P=0.008). One- and 6-month major adverse cardiac event rates were low and similar in both groups. Conclusions— Early ambulance administration of abciximab in STEMI did not improve either STR or TIMI flow rate after PCI. However, it tended to improve TIMI flow pre-PCI and decreased distal embolization during procedure. Larger studies are needed to confirm these results. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00638638.

Individual participant data analysis of two trials on aldosterone blockade in myocardial infarction

Background Two recent randomised trials studied the benefit of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) irrespective or in absence of heart failure. The studies were both undersized to assess hard clinical endpoints. A pooled analysis was preplanned by the steering committees. Methods We conducted a prespecified meta-analysis of patient-level data of patients with STEMI recruited in two multicentre superiority trials, randomised within 72 hours after symptom onset. Patients were allocated (1:1) to two MRA regimens: (1) an intravenous bolus of potassium canrenoate (200 mg) followed by oral spironolactone (25 mg once daily) versus standard therapy or (2) oral eplerenone (25–50 mg) versus placebo. The primary and key secondary outcomes, all-cause death and the composite of all-cause death or resuscitated sudden death, respectively, were assessed in the intention-to-treat population using a Cox model stratified on the study identifier. Results Patients were randomly assigned to receive (n=1118) or not the MRA regimen (n=1123). After a median follow-up time of 188 days, the primary and secondary outcomes occurred in 5 (0.4%) and 17 (1.5%) patients (adjusted HR (adjHR) 0.31, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.86, p=0.03) and 6 (0.5%) and 22 (2%) patients (adjHR 0.26, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.65, p=0.004) in the MRA and control groups, respectively. There were also trends towards lower rates of cardiovascular death (p=0.06) and ventricular fibrillation (p=0.08) in the MRA group. Conclusion Our analysis suggests that compared with standard therapy, MRA regimens are associated with a reduction of death and death or resuscitated sudden death in STEMI.

Skin mottling score and capillary refill time to assess mortality of septic shock since pre-hospital setting

Objectives: The early identification of septic shock patients at high risk of poor outcome is essential to early initiate optimal treatments and to decide on hospital admission. Biomarkers are often used to evaluate the severity. In prehospital settings, the availability of biomarkers, such as lactate, is restricted. In this context, clinical tools such as skin mottling score (SMS) and capillary refill time (CRT) are more suitable. In this study, we describe prehospital SMS and CRTs ability to predict mortality of patients with septic shock initially cared in the prehospital setting by a mobile intensive care unit. Methods: Patients with septic shock who received prehospital medical care admitted to the intensive care unit were retrospectively analyzed. Results: Sixty‐three patients were included. The origin of sepsis was mainly pulmonary (67%). Overall mortality reached 36%. No significant difference was observed in the duration of prehospital medical care between alive and deceased patients. Mean prehospital value of SMS was 3 ± 2 and mean prehospital value of CRT was 5 ± 1 s. A significant association was found between mortality and prehospital SMS (p = 0.02, OR[CI95] = 1.50 [1.08–2.15]) and prehospital CRT (p = 0.04, OR[CI95] = 1.53 [1.04–2.37]). After adjusting for confounding factors using propensity score, the relative risk of death was 6.58 for SMS > 2 and 2.03 for CRT > 4 s. Conclusion: In this study, we report an association between prehospital SMS and CRT, and mortality of patients with septic shock. SMS and CRT are simple tools that could be used to optimize the triage and to decide early intensive care admission.